On Thursday, April 29, 2021 12:01:45 PM CEST Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 10:25:53AM +0200, Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 09:44:47AM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 9:26:20 AM CEST Fabio Aiuto wrote:
> > > > Hi Fabio,
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 01:33:45PM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > > > > Removed four set but unused variables. Issue detected by gcc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Fabio M. De Francesco <fmdefrancesco@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/rtl8723b_hal_init.c | 5 -----
> > > > > 1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/rtl8723b_hal_init.c
> > > > > b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/rtl8723b_hal_init.c index
> > >
> > > 082448557b53..96cb4426a0f4
> > >
> > > > > 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/rtl8723b_hal_init.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/rtl8723b_hal_init.c
> > > > > @@ -3900,14 +3900,11 @@ u8 GetHalDefVar8723B(struct adapter
*padapter,
> > >
> > > enum
> > >
> > > > > hal_def_variable variable, v>
> > > > >
> > > > > u32 cmd;
> > > > > u32 ra_info1, ra_info2;
> > > > > u32 rate_mask1, rate_mask2;
> > > > >
> > > > > - u8 curr_tx_rate, curr_tx_sgi, hight_rate,
> > >
> > > lowest_rate;
> > >
> > > > > cmd = 0x40000100 | mac_id;
> > > > > rtw_write32(padapter,
> > >
> > > REG_HMEBOX_DBG_2_8723B, cmd);
> > >
> > > > > msleep(10);
> > > > > ra_info1 = rtw_read32(padapter, 0x2F0);
> > > > >
> > > > > - curr_tx_rate = ra_info1&0x7F;
> > > > > - curr_tx_sgi = (ra_info1>>7)&0x01;
> > > > >
> > > > > cmd = 0x40000400 | mac_id;
> > > > > rtw_write32(padapter,
> > >
> > > REG_HMEBOX_DBG_2_8723B, cmd);
> > >
> > > > > @@ -3916,8 +3913,6 @@ u8 GetHalDefVar8723B(struct adapter *padapter,
enum
> > > > > hal_def_variable variable, v>
> > > > >
> > > > > ra_info2 = rtw_read32(padapter, 0x2F4);
> > > > > rate_mask1 = rtw_read32(padapter, 0x2F8);
> > > > > rate_mask2 = rtw_read32(padapter, 0x2FC);
> > > > >
> > > > > - hight_rate = ra_info2&0xFF;
> > > > > - lowest_rate = (ra_info2>>8) & 0xFF;
> > > > >
> > > > > }
> > > > > break;
> > > >
> > > > rate_mask{1,2} and ra_info{1,2} seems to be unused as well.
> > > >
> > > > thank you,
> > > >
> > > > fabio
> > >
> > > Hello Fabio,
> > >
> > > I'm not sure about it: rtw_read32 calls a pointer to a function. I'm
don't
> > > know drivers programming, however that function looks like an
implementation
> > > of a read() system call. So I wouldn't be so sure to remove those calls.
> > >
> > > Could calling a (*read) method have side effects on subsequent read()? I
mean:
> > > could it update some internal data structure? If not I can remove the
> > > variables you mentioned above and the calls to read32.
> > >
> > > I'm looking forward to read your reply.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Fabio
> >
> > hi Fabio,
> >
> > rtw_read32 is a macro wrapping _rtw_read32() defined as follows (in core/
rtw_io.c):
> >
> > u32 _rtw_read32(struct adapter *adapter, u32 addr)
> > {
> >
> > u32 r_val;
> > /* struct io_queue *pio_queue = (struct io_queue
> > *)adapter->pio_queue; */
> > struct io_priv *pio_priv = &adapter->iopriv;
> > struct intf_hdl *pintfhdl = &(pio_priv->intf);
> > u32 (*_read32)(struct intf_hdl *pintfhdl, u32 addr);
> >
> > _read32 = pintfhdl->io_ops._read32;
> >
> > r_val = _read32(pintfhdl, addr);
> > return rtw_le32_to_cpu(r_val);
> >
> > }
> >
> > the actual read seems to be performed by the handler contained in
> >
> > pintfhdl->io_ops._read32;
> >
> > so:
> >
> > $ grep -r '\b_read32' drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/
> >
> > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/hal/sdio_ops.c: ops->_read32 =
&sdio_read32;
> >
> > this is the place where _read32 is stored with sdio_read32 reference...
> >
> > drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_io.c: u32 (*_read32)(struct
intf_hdl *pintfhdl, u32
> > addr); drivers/staging/rtl8723bs/core/rtw_io.c: _read32 = pintfhdl-
>io_ops._read32;
> > ...
> >
> > if you check it in hal/sdio_ops.c, nothing is written, just reads are
> > performed (and it's not odd, for a read function isn't supposed to write
> > something under the hood ;)).
>
> Yes, but many types of hardware _REQUIRE_ reads to do something. So
> "read that does nothing" is a requirement for some operations.
>
> As an example, a write is only guaranteed to have been finished if you
> do a read of the same location back from it on some hardware busses.
> The bus can reorder things, but a write/read of the same location can
> not be reordered.
>
> Sometimes you have to do reads multiple times to get things to "stick".
>
> Other times reading from a location changes a state in the hardware
> (horrid but HW designers aren't the brightest at times...)
>
> So you can NOT just remove reads without knowing that the hardware does
> not require this. This is an issue where GCC "warnings" mean nothing as
> gcc does not actually know what hardware does, or does not, do for many
> things.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
Just to be sure... does it mean that v1 can be applied as-is?
Thanks,
Fabio
